Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
02. Ordinance - 2024 - 07 Adopting Cannabis Regulations
Staff Report Date of Meeting: November 6, 2024 For: Honorable Mayor and Council From: Kyle Morell, City Administrator Subject: Public Hearing: Ordinance No. 2024-07 Adopting Cannabis Regulations Background: At our Special Meeting on July 24, the Council viewed a presentation by Christina Benson from Eckberg & Lammers about the new cannabis and hemp rules and regulations. We discussed using the Office of Cannabis Management to help draft the needed additions to the City Code and using some of our existing zoning language to help make changes to our allowed uses section of the Unified Development Code. At our September 4 Council Work Session, staff presented draft UDC and model ordinance language. The UDC language includes additions to sections 153.600 Master Glossary and 153.300 Allowed Uses. The model ordinance language likely becomes Chapter 115 of the City Code. The council discussed licensing limits within Scandia and whether or not to impose restrictions on where cannabis businesses can operate based on the location of schools, daycares, churches, and parks. The council expressed a desire to treat cannabis and hemp businesses similarly to the restrictions around alcohol and tobacco in terms of licenses allowed and restrictions on business locations. At our October 2 Council Work Session, the Council again discussed the proposed ordinance language. The remaining items for discussion were whether or not to limit registrations within the City and whether the city should limit the sale of low-potency hemp to places that only allow persons 21 years of age and older. The Council decided not to limit the number of registrations and to not restrict the sale of low-potency hemp to places that only allow persons over 21 years of age and older. Discussion Ordinance 2024-07 and a summary version for publication are attached. We will hold a public hearing at the work session to take public comment. I have also attached a staff report from City Planner TJ Hofer detailing complaints other cities have received about odor from outdoor cultivation sites. While eliminating the odor of outdoor cultivation is impossible, the report proposed reintroducing a buffer zone around school property to help disperse odors before they reach school property. The report proposes a buffer of 1,000 feet. The included map shows where that buffer would apply. The attached ordinance does include this provision. If the Council wishes to remove it, a motion must be made to approve the ordinance with the removal of section 3.1. Staff is happy to answer any questions you might have during the public hearing. Attachments: Ordinance 2024 – 07 – Regulating Cannabis Businesses Ordinance 2024 – 07 – Summary for Publication Staff Report from City Planner TJ Hofer – Zoning District and Use Standards for Cannabis Use – Outdoor Cultivation Odor CITY OF SCANDIA ORDINANCE NO. 2024-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA TO REGULATE CANNABIS BUSINESSES The City Council of the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby ordains: Chapter 115 Cannabis Section 1 Administration Section 2 Registration of Cannabis Business Section 3 Section 4 Requirement for Cannabis Business Temporary Cannabis Events Section 1. Administration 1.1 Findings and Purpose The City of Scandia makes the following legislative findings: The purpose of this ordinance is to implement the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342, which authorizes the City of Scandia to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of City residents by regulating cannabis businesses within the legal boundaries of Scandia The City of Scandia finds and concludes that the proposed provisions are appropriate and lawful land use regulations for Scandia, that the proposed amendments will promote the community's interest in reasonable stability in zoning for now and in the future, and that the proposed provisions are in the public interest and for the public good. 1.2 Authority & Jurisdiction The City of Scandia has the authority to adopt this ordinance pursuant to: a) Minn. Stat. 342.13(c), regarding the authority of a local unit of government to adopt reasonable restrictions of the time, place, and manner of the operation of cannabis businesses and hemp businesses. b) Minn. Stat. 342.22, regarding the local registration and enforcement requirements of cannabis retailers or lower-potency hemp edible retailers. c) Minn. Stat. 462.357, regarding the authority of a local authority to adopt zoning ordinances. Ordinance shall be applicable to the legal boundaries of Scandia 1.3 Severability If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 1.4 Enforcement The City Administrator is responsible for the administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable as defined by law. Section 2. Registration of Cannabis Businesses 2.1 Consent to registering of Cannabis Businesses No individual or entity may operate a cannabis retailer business or lower-potency hemp edible retailer business within Scandia without first registering with the City of Scandia. Any cannabis retailer business or lower-potency hemp edible retailer business that sells to a customer or patient without valid registration shall incur a civil penalty of up to $2,000 for each violation. 2.2 Compliance Checks Prior to Retail Registration Prior to the issuance of a registration, Scandia shall conduct a preliminary compliance check to ensure compliance with local ordinances before a registration is issued. 2.3 Registration & Application Procedure 2.3.1 Fees. A registration fee, as established in Scandia’s fee schedule, shall be charged to applicants depending on the type of license applied for. The initial registration fee shall include the initial retail registration fee and the first annual renewal fee. Any renewal retail registration fee imposed by Scandia shall be charged at the time of the second renewal and each subsequent renewal thereafter. 2.3.2 Application Submittal. The City shall issue a registration to a business with a State License that adheres to the requirements of Minn. Stat. 342.22. (A) An applicant for a retail registration shall fill out an application form, as provided by the City of Scandia. Said form shall include, but is not limited to: i. Full name of the property owner and applicant; ii. Address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant; iii. The address and parcel ID for the property which the retail registration is sought; iv. Certification that the applicant complies with the requirements of local ordinances established pursuant to Minn. Stat. 342.13. v. Such other information as the city shall require. (B) The applicant shall include with the form: i. the application fee as required in [Section 2.3.1]; ii. a copy of a valid state license or written notice of OCM license preapproval; iii. Such other information as the city shall require. (C) Once an application is considered complete, the City Clerk shall inform the applicant as such, process the application fees, and forward the application to the City Council for approval or denial. (D) The application fee shall be non-refundable once processed. 2.3.3 Application Approval (A) A registration application shall not be approved or renewed if the applicant is unable to meet the requirements of this ordinance. (B) A registration application that meets the requirements of this ordinance shall be approved. 2.3.4 Annual Compliance Checks. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office shall complete at minimum one compliance check per calendar year of every cannabis business to assess if the business meets age verification requirements, as required under Minn. Stat. 342.22 Subd. 4(b) and Minn. Stat. 342.24. 2.3.5 Location Change A cannabis retailer business or lower-potency hemp edible retailer business shall be required to submit a new application for registration under Section 2.3.2 if it seeks to move to a new location still within the legal boundaries of Scandia. 2.4 Renewal of Registration A cannabis retailer business or lower-potency hemp edible retailer business shall apply to renew registration on a form established by Scandia. A cannabis retail registration issued under this ordinance shall not be transferred. 2.4.1 Renewal Fees. The City charges a renewal fee for the registration starting at the second renewal, as established in Scandia’s fee schedule. 2.4.2 Renewal Application. The application for renewal of a retail registration shall include, but is not limited to: Items required under Section 2.3.2 of this Ordinance. 2.5 Suspension of Registration 2.5.1 When Suspension is Warranted. The City may suspend a registration if it violates the ordinance of the City or poses an immediate threat to the health or safety of the public. The City shall immediately notify the business in writing the grounds for the suspension. 2.5.2 Length of Suspension. The suspension of a registration may be for up to 30 calendar days, unless OCM suspends the license for a longer period. The business may not make sales to customers if their registration is suspended. The City may reinstate a registration if it determines that the violations have been resolved. 2.5.3 Civil Penalties. Subject to Minn. Stat. 342.22, subd. 5(e) the City imposes a civil penalty, as specified in the City’s Fee Schedule, for registration violations, up to $2,000. Section 3. Requirements for Cannabis Business (Time, Place, Manner) 3.1 Minimum Buffer Requirement The City prohibits the operation of outdoor cannabis cultivation within 1,000 feet of a school. 3.2 Hours of Operation Cannabis businesses are limited to retail sale of cannabis, cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived consumer products between the hours of 10:00 am and 09:00 p.m. Section 4. Temporary Cannabis Events 4.1 Permit Required for Temporary Cannabis Events 4.1.1 Permit Required. A permit is required to be issued and approved by the City of Scandia prior to holding a Temporary Cannabis Event. 4.1.2 Permit & Application Procedure A permit fee, as established in the City’s fee schedule, shall be charged to applicants for Temporary Cannabis Events. 4.1.3 Application Submittal & Review. The City shall require an application for Temporary Cannabis Events. 4.1.3.1 An applicant for a permit shall fill out an application form, as provided by the City. Said form shall include, but is not limited to: 4.1.3.1.1 Full name of the property owner and applicant; 4.1.3.1.2 Address, email address, and telephone number of the applicant; 4.1.3.1.3 Such other information as the City may require. 4.1.3.2 The applicant shall include with the form: 4.1.3.2.1 the application fee as required in (Section 4.1.2); 4.1.3.2.2 a copy of the OCM cannabis event license application, submitted pursuant to 342.39 subd. 2. The application shall be submitted to the City Clerk or other designee for review. If the designee determines that a submitted application is incomplete, they shall return the application to the applicant with a notice of deficiencies. 4.1.3.3 Once an application is considered complete, the designee shall inform the applicant as such, process the application fees, and forward the application to the City Clerk for approval or denial. 4.1.3.4 The application fee shall be non-refundable once processed. 4.1.3.5 The application for a permit for a Temporary Cannabis Event shall meet the following standards: 4.1.3.5.1 Temporary cannabis events shall only be held between the hours of 10:00 am and 9:00 p.m. 4.1.3.5.2 The temporary cannabis event is setback a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from any lot lines. 4.1.3.5.3 On-site consumption of cannabis is not permitted. 4.1.3.5.4 No off-site signage shall be permitted. (G) A request for a Temporary Cannabis Event that does not meet the requirements of this Section shall be denied. The City of Scandia shall notify the applicant of the standards not met and basis for denial. Ordinance Summary SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2020-07, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE CITY’S CODE OF ORDINANCES. On November 6, 2024, at a Work Session of the Scandia City Council, by majority vote, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2024-07, which updates the City’s Code of Ordinances regarding cannabis regulation. A printed copy of the Ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at City Hall or by standard or electronic mail. 1 | P a g e Date of Meeting: November 6, 2024 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Kyle Morell, City Administrator From: T.J. Hofer, Consultant City Planner Re: Zoning District and Use Standards for Cannabis Uses – Outdoor Cultivation Odor In 2023, cannabis was legalized for recreational use and the sale, possession, use, and growth of cannabis was decriminalized. The Office of Cannabis Management is currently drafting rules and standards for licensing and use of facilities that will deal with cannabis. BACKGROUND At the July 24, 2024, and September 4, 2024, City Council meetings, the Council was presented with information regarding new state statutes regarding cannabis and zoning standards regarding cannabis uses, respectively. At the July meeting, the Council discussed the buffer allowed by state statute to prohibit cannabis uses (“buffer”) within “1,000 feet of a school, or 500 feet of a day care, residential treatment facility, or an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by minors, including a playground or athletic field.” The Council indicated that at the time, the buffers were not desired. City Planner Hofer attended a session at the 2024 American Planning Association Minnesota Planning Conference regarding communities’ approach to regulating cannabis. After this meeting, Planner Hofer discussed outdoor cannabis cultivation with a number of planners at the conference and within Bolton & Menk, and City officials from communities within Dakota County where there is currently an active outdoor cannabis cultivation use. The outdoor cannabis cultivation has created a notable odor that is impossible to address as the outdoor use is conveyed by the wind. Staff further researched the potential issue and found similar issues identified in California and Canada. Staff found an article on the National Library of Medicine that summarizes the issue well and have included the article as an attachment. w Staff believe it would be beneficial to revisit a discussion about buffers from schools from outdoor cannabis cultivation. The allowed buffer of 1,000 feet would not address the issue as 2 | P a g e staff understands it to exist within Dakota County, however, any separation would likely be beneficial to reducing odor concerns. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED STANDARDS Commercial Outdoor Cannabis Agriculture is currently proposed to be allowed in the Agricultural Preserve, Agricultural Core, and Rural Residential General. A-P AG -C RR -G RR -N V-N V-C V-HC R-C I-P Use Specific Section Reference Agriculture, Commercial Outdoor Cannabis P P P 153.300.030 Subd. 1 (A) Staff have prepared a map showing the relevant districts and a 1,000-foot buffer from Scandia Elementary School. ANALYSIS Staff Analysis Staff believes the proposed standards will guide cannabis-related uses to the correct zoning districts and set standards for safe and effective operations. Additional separation from schools should not impact any current businesses that sell low-potency hemp or any businesses that the City is aware of that have expressed interest in cannabis uses. Currently, the proposed zoning standards for cannabis uses are scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission at their November 12, 2024, meeting. COUNCIL ACTION Staff are requesting feedback on the proposed standards in order to prepare an ordinance amendment to the UDC. Attachments A. Seltenrich N. (2022). Odor Control in the Cannabis Industry: Lessons from the New Kid on the Block. Environmental health perspectives, 130(6), 62001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11449v B. 1,000 ft. Buffer from Schools Map Odor Control in the Cannabis Industry: Lessons from the New Kid on the Block Nate Seltenrich https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11449 For centuries before germ theory became widely accepted, people believed that foul odors caused devastating diseases such as bu- bonic plague, cholera, and malaria (whose name literally means “bad air.”)1,2 Now bad odors are recognized as affecting human health through psychological pathways, including stress-mediated headaches and sleep disruption. 3–9 These effects may occur along with the more direct physiological harms of air pollution, which includecancer,heartdisease,andrespiratorydisease.10 The brunt of bad odors is frequently borne by lower-income communities already struggling with other exposure and health disparities.11–18 Odor is an underappreciated driver of environ- mental injustice within communities near industrial facilities, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, asphalt plants, and concen- trated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where bad odors can occur daily. In addition to the unpleasantness of the odors them- selves, residents may worry about the environmental conditions that give rise to the smells, 13 adding to their distress. Although the U.S. Clean Air Act sets emissions standards for a handful of air pollutants, 19 the federal government does not regulate environmental odors. Some states and cities do have odor regulations, although short-term exposures can be difficult to document, and exemptions may be allowed for major sources, such as manufacturing and CAFOs. 20 Now, however, a more precautionary perspective is being advancedby an unexpected source: the cannabis cultivationindus- try.Perhapsinabidtogainacceptanceforthisnewlylegalizedand sometimes controversial crop, growers and regulators are embrac- ing new attitudes and contributing new insights into how unwel- come or offensive odors may cause harm, including to some of our mostvulnerablecitizens. Cannabis: The New Neighbor The cannabis industry is expanding rapidly around the world, and every year new jurisdictions allow its recreational or medical use.21 But increased cultivation of this long-banned crop is giving rise to concerns among some neighbors about the pungent odors it can produce. The smells are especially strong during flowering, Cannabis, grown both indoors and outdoors, releases odors throughout its growing cycle, especially just prior to harvest. These odors can be overpowering or offensive to some, and the resulting annoyance may impact mental or physical health. Images, left to right:©Bloomberg, Matthew Staver/Getty Images;© Sean Horton, Stocksy/stock.adobe.com. Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-1 130(6) June 2022 A Section 508–conformant HTML version of this article is available at https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11449.Focus which typically lasts 4–5 weeks before harvest, and subsequent processing, which can take another 3–4 weeks. 22 These smells are distinct from those produced by burning cannabis; they are the aromas of the plants themselves, which vary depending on cultivar or strain. Brittany Heaton, principal cannabis analyst with the Southern California county of Santa Barbara, says odors have been a sig- nificant concern across the region for years, ever since cannabis cultivation facilities were first proposed and permitted following California’s legalization of recreational use in 2016.“A lot of the appeals in the beginning were around odor,”she says.“Someone would come in for a land-use entitlement to try and cultivate can- nabis, and a lot of the complaints [from the public] started out as ‘This is an area where the smell is going to affect people.’” Depending on the type of grow—outdoors in open air, indoors under light emitting diode (LED) lights, or inside vented greenhouses—cannabis cultivation facilities can be sited in a wide range of settings, from rich to poor, urban to rural, industrial to pastoral. Odor can be issue in any of them. According to one study, nuisance legal actions may pose a greater financial threat to the cannabis industry in the United States than regulation. 23 Santa Barbara’s many cannabis grows—including some of the nation’s largest 24—are predominately outdoors or in greenhouses, allowing for easy escape of nuisance odors when conditions are right. Heaton acknowledges that the scents can carry far and that some individuals appear to be acutely sensitive to them, even in passing.“Thereareareasofthecountythatyoudrivethroughduring different parts of the year when the plants are mature,”she says, “andsomepeoplecanbebotheredbythatsmell.” Inthesouthernpartofthecounty,wheremanyresidentsareac- customedtoleavingtheirwindowsopendayandnight,unwelcome cannabisodorscanwaftin withtheoceanbreeze.Thesmellcanbe particularly prominent around the City of Carpinteria, which is ringed by former flower greenhouses that local officials have embraced as cannabis grow sites. 24,25 Located just east of the wealthier City of Santa Barbara, the population of this small beach townispredominantlyLatino. The county has yet to deny or withdraw a permit based on odor impacts, Heaton says. But her office has received occasional complaints suggesting that some residents consider odors more than a mere nuisance, and potentially a health threat.“I have heard from individuals that it’s irritating, that they have head- aches, or maybe irritated lungs or sore throats. But to date, it hasn’t been substantiated,”she says.“I believe them, I believe that they’re experiencing something. It’s just been anecdotal.” Volatile Organics and Ozone More than 1,000 miles up the Pacific Coast, Vancouver, Canada, is another center of cannabis cultivation. And where goes canna- bis, so goes its scent. In a 2021 analysis of the “urban smell- scape”of metro Vancouver, cannabis cultivation facilities were associated with nearly a quarter of the 261 odor reports made by residents to a web-based application during the 20-week study period.26 That was twice as many as reported for the next most odorous source: wastewater treatment plants. To learn more about how neighbors of cannabis grows may be affected by odors, many of the same researchers who worked on that study authored a March 2022 review of the literature related to the air- quality impacts of these facilities. 27 Cannabis odors are largely attributable to a class of volatile or- ganic compounds (VOCs) called terpenes. 28 More than 150 dis- tinct terpenes have been identified in different cannabis strains, 29 from among approximately 30,000 expressed across the plant world.30 In their review, the authors identified a few key terpenes oftendetectedathighlevelsinandaroundgrows:myrcene(earthy, A few key terpenes are often detected at high levels in and around cannabis grows, yielding scents that may be piney, grassy, citrusy, woody,floral, or earthy. The skunky odor commonly reported to emanate from mature cannabis plants is attributable to sulfurous compounds. Images, clockwise from top left:©Svt/stock.adobe.com;©iStock.com/luca gavagna;©Geoffrey Kuchera/Shutterstock.com;©iStock.com/Leslie Lauren;©iStock.com/phet phu. Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-2 130(6) June 2022 musky), limonene (citrusy), terpinolene (woody,floral), and pi- nene (piney, grassy). 31 The “skunky”odor emanating from mature flowers of some strains was once thought to also be produced by terpenes, but recent research suggests that sulfurous compounds are responsible, in particular one called 3-methyl-2-butene-1- thiol.32–35 Although the scents of these chemicals may be overpowering or offensive to some, and the resulting annoyance may impact mental or physical health, a key question remains: Can they cause direct physiological harm? Research published in 2002 36 showed that mice exposed to oxidation products of limonene and pinene experienced transient adverse effects to the upper and lower airways. However, these effects occurred at concentrations higher than are likely to be found anywhere outdoors. More relevant to the real world, emit- ting terpene VOCs in a “VOC-limited”region—one with a low ratio of VOCs to nitrogen oxides, as is common in cities—may favor the formation of ground-level ozone, 31 a pollutant associ- ated with respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and related deaths in humans. 37,38 “Current studies suggest that cannabis cultivation facilities might already be changing the ozone concentration where they are located,”the Vancouver researchers wrote in their review. 27 For example, a 2019 study in Denver, Colorado, found that VOC emissions from local cannabis cultivation facilities could increase hourly ozone concentrations by up to 0.34 ppb in the morning and 0.67 ppb at night. 39 Review coauthor Naomi Zimmerman, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of British Columbia, says the significance of such changes depends on how close a region is to exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.“For some areas that are exceeding or close to exceeding ambient air-quality standards, this can be a concern,”she explains.“If ozone levels are well below thresh- olds, it’s less of a concern.” The authors concluded that health effects from cannabis culti- vation facility emissions are mostly driven by odor annoyance. “There’s a subjective experience of how offensive odors are, in particular from cannabis cultivation facilities,”says coauthor Amanda Giang, an assistant professor in the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia.“But the degree of offensiveness that someone perceives or feels, research has indicated, can have an effect on the stress response that they experience.” Pinpointing a Culprit Back in Santa Barbara County, odor remains a subject of consid- erable interest—and occasional strife—among local officials, res- idents, and cultivators. Although odor has yet to derail any cannabis cultivation plans, the county does typically require odor The animal waste produced by CAFOs is stored in lagoons and frequently sprayed on agricultural fields as a fertilizer. The emissions from CAFOs are notori- ously foul smelling and have been implicated in physical and mental health effects among neighboring residents. 53,54 Images: lagoon ©Gerry Broome/AP Photo; inset ©Allen G. Breed/AP Photo. Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-3 130(6) June 2022 control at grow sites, Heaton says, and the current grace period for compliance at many recently permitted facilities is set to expire soon. “We’re confident that once we get everybody into the fully li- censed space we’ll be able to better enforce,”she says.“Our compliance team is going to be doing regular reviews, and we’re looking at technologies to measure and monitor odor.” In the meantime, a local industry group known as the Cannabis Association for Responsible Producers (CARP) Growers is taking action on odor abatement. CARP Growers president Autumn Shelton, who also runs her own cannabis farm, says that years ago local greenhouse growers began installing a dry vapor–producing technologytoneutralizeairborneodors. It worked—to a point.“The odor got significantly better here oncemorefarmscameonwiththattechnology,butitstillexisted,” Shelton says.“We still were getting complaints about the skunky smell. And that was really hard to understand, because if you walk intosomebody’sgreenhouse,itdoesn’tsmelllikeaskunk.Itsmells like terpenes, like different varieties that they’re growing, some- times more fruity, sometimes a little more pungent, but certainly nevertheskunkysmell.” This mystery sent CARP Growers and its consultants down a road that eventually led to thiols, volatile sulfur compounds that also produce odors found in garlic, rotten eggs, and skunk musk— and that were only recently widely recognized as components of cannabis odors. 32,34,35 The issue, it turned out, is that although ter- penes are the dominantodorsourceupclose, cannabisthiolsavoid- ing neutralization by dry vapor were dispersing across significant distances under some weather conditions, says CARP Growers ex- ecutive director Peter Dugré. These odors were being detected by neighbors at very low concentrations. 40 Now that CARP Growers has its culprit, the association is testing a new air-filtration device that uses carbon scrubbing in combination with other odor- abatement technologies to more effectively remove thiols at the source. From Cannabis to CAFOs The evolving drama around cannabis odors in Santa Barbara offers a valuable lesson: Identifying the specific chemical consti- tutions of problematic odors may be a key to monitoring, mitigat- ing, and regulating them. Don Wright agrees—in fact, it is a message the Texas-based odor specialist and consultant has repeated for years in an effort to improve upon the traditional approach of viewing humans as the ideal sensors of environmental odors. Often, he explains, it is assumed that odor makeup and perception is so complex and inherently “squishy”that the best way to assess its character and impact is through a trained odor inspector. 20,41 Wright, however, advocates for an instrument-based approach. “Ihavealwaysarguedthatananalyticalapproachtoenvironmental odor assessment stands a much better chance of encouraging pri- mary odor-source operators to take ownership of significant envi- ronmental odor impacts originating from their operations,”he says. His method, developed over the past three decades and appliedtocasesfromCAFOstobreweries,involvesusingmultidi- mensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to parse com- plex odors down to their constituent parts. With that information, authorities and operators can prioritize key compounds for management.42 “If you look at it from the perspective of the downwind citi- zen and can define what it is that they are primarily responding to, very often that’s not a hundred or a thousand compounds that are being emitted from the source,”Wright says.“There’s typi- cally just a handful of compounds, in some cases one or two, that people are actually perceiving.” The far-reaching skunky smell of cannabis grow operations is a perfect illustration, he says. In fact, he and his collaborators recently used this approach to investigate the role of thiols in skunky odors produced at a large cultivation facility in Texas. 43 He also used it to demonstrate that a “barnyard”-scented com- pound called p-cresol is a dominant signature odorant far down- wind of large cattle feedlots and swine CAFOs. 44 “In all these cases, these character-defining compounds are emerging from extremely complex emission backgrounds,” Wright says.“When I first studied the swine CAFO industry back in the late 1990s, the count was up to several hundred com- pounds.45 Seemingly, from an analytical standpoint, the odor was being chased by seeing how many compounds we could define.” However, with respect to problem solving, it can be more effective to determine the smallest subset of impactful compounds. The work by Wright and colleagues 44 on p-cresol informed subse- quent research into reducing odor from CAFO waste lagoons by adding hydrogen peroxide and an enzyme called horseradish per- oxidase. These compounds react with p-cresol to form an odorless compound called Pummerer’sketone.46 Crowdsourcing Odor Data In another strategy to corral odor data—and perhaps lead to solu- tions for affected communities—researchers and web developers areincreasinglyturningtocrowdsourcing.TheVancouverresearch- ers’“urban smellscape”project, now dubbed Smell Vancouver, continues to collect odor reports via a website as part of a larger ongoingresearchproject.47 Andtheyarefarfromalone. The greater Pittsburgh area has its own share of cannabis grows, but the city is more notorious for other sources of odors. 48 Although Pittsburgh has improved its air quality remarkably in recent decades, the city is still prone to frequent atmospheric inversions that trap emissions from the steel and power plants surrounding the city. 49 In March 2022, the city suffered under a pall of particularly bad air for 4 days. The sulfuric stench drove a huge spike in odor reports to Smell Pittsburgh, a smartphone app that since 2016 has tracked residents’subjective experience of local air quality. 50 “This is the worst it’s smelled all year,”read one March 15 report to the app.“Dry burning sulfur, completely unacceptable, why is this still allowed?”Another user wrote,“This horrible sul- fur smell seeps into my house even with windows and doors closed. It’s sickening some days, like today.” Smell Pittsburgh registered 185 reports of malodorous air that day, with an average “smell value”of 4.36 on a scale of 1 to 5. March 16 was even worse, registering 193 reports. Many respond- ents noted not only what the air smelled like, but also how it made themfeel.“Rotteneggs.Migraine,nausea,throatirritation,andgen- eral irritation that I can’t even open my windows for fresh air. This is absurd. We can’t keep dealing with days like this,”one resident lamented. Another reported an “exhaust industrial”odor that left them with a headache and nausea:“Cannot sleep, cannot live in this place.”51 Although not all harmful chemicals have off-putting smells, unwelcome odors can serve as a sentinel of the presence of harm- ful pollutants. To further explore these relationships, the develop- ers of Smell Pittsburgh created a second app for a nationwide audience called Smell MyCity, which launched in 2019. The app’s intended users are local residents, organizations, and regu- lators, who can use smell report data to help track down potential sources of pollution in neighborhoods. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate odors, it is getting in on the crowdsourced smell- tracking game too. A new app called Odor Explore is being Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-4 130(6) June 2022 developed and tested in Louisville, Kentucky. If rolled out nation- wide, it will allow members of the public to report odors in their communityandviewreportssubmittedbyothers.52 The goal is for state and local agencies to use data from the app to facilitate responses to odor complaints, says U.S. EPA pro- ject lead Rachelle Duvall.“By gathering detailed information on odors with the help of community scientists,”she says,“we hope that ultimately this app will engage and empower communities and help state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as industry, in evaluating air pollution and odor-control strategies.” Compiling such reports on a national scale and comparing them with air-quality data could also provide valuable new insights into the full impacts of air pollution on public health and well-being. And it could advance environmental justice by con- tributing to a more accurate accounting of disparities in harmful exposures, a benefit acknowledged by the U.S. EPA.“Many communities impacted by odors also have environmental justice concerns,”Duvall says,“so this app and data generated could support addressing those issues.” Nate Seltenrich covers science and the environment from the San Francisco Bay Area. His work on subjects including energy, ecology, and environmental health has appeared in a wide variety of regional, national, and international publications. References 1. Blei D. 2020. In 19th-Century America, Fighting Disease Meant Battling Bad Smells.Atlas Obscura, Stories section, 8 April 2020.https://www.atlasobscura. com/articles/public-health-bad-smells-miasma [accessed 9 June 2022]. 2. Kannadan A. 2018. History of the Miasma Theory of Disease.ESSAI 16:18. https://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&context=essai. 3. Hirasawa Y, Shirasu M, Okamoto M, Touhara K. 2019. Subjective unpleasant- ness of malodors induces a stress response. Psychoneuroendocrinology 106:206–215, PMID:31003137,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.03.018. 4. Schiffman SS, Williams CM. 2005. Science of odor as a potential health issue. J Environ Qual 34(1):129–138, PMID:15647542,https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0129a. 5. Shusterman D, Lipscomb J, Neutra R, Satin K. 1991. Symptom prevalence and odor–worry interaction near hazardous waste sites. Environ Health Perspect 94:25–30, PMID:1954935,https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.94-1567940. 6. Berkers E, Pop I, Cloïn M, Eugster A, van Oers H. 2021. The relative effects of self-reported noise and odour annoyance on psychological distress: different effects across sociodemographic groups? PLoS One 16(10):e0258102, PMID: 34597345,https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258102. 7. Blanes-Vidal V, Suh H, Nadimi ES, Løfstrøm P, Ellermann T, Andersen HV, et al. 2012. Residential exposure to outdoor air pollution from livestock operations and perceived annoyance among citizens. Environ Int 40:44–50, PMID: 22280927,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.11.010. 8. Nordin S, Aldrin L, Claeson AS, Andersson L. 2017. Effects of negative affectivity and odor valence on chemosensory and symptom perception and perceived ability to focus on a cognitive task. Perception 46(3–4):431–446, PMID:28094658, https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006616686990. 9. Schiffman SS, Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG. 1995. The effect of environ- mental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Res Bull 37(4):369–375, PMID:7620910,https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0361-9230(95)00015-1. 10. Fuller R, Landrigan PJ, Balakrishnan K, Bathan G, Bose-O’Reilly S, Brauer M, et al. 2022. Pollution and health: a progress update. Lancet Planet Health. 6(6): E535–E547, PMID:35594895,https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00090-0. 11. Xiao J, Aletta F, Radicchi A, McLean K, Shiner LE, Verbeek C. 2021. Recent advances in smellscape research for the built environment. Front Psychol 12:700514, PMID:34354642,https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.700514. 12. Johnston JE, Chau K, Franklin M, Cushing L. 2020. Environmental justice dimen- sions of oil and gas flaring in south Texas: disproportionate exposure among Hispanic communities. Environ Sci Technol 54(10):6289, PMID:32338877, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00410. 13. Kret J, Dalidowitz Dame L, Tutlam N, DeClue RW, Schmidt S, Donaldson K, et al. 2018. A respiratory health survey of a subsurface smoldering landfill. Environ Res 166:427–436, PMID:29940475,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.025. 14. LowmanA,McDonaldMA,WingS,MuhammadN.2013.Landapplicationoftreated sewage sludge: community health and environmental justice. Environ Health Perspect121(5):537–542,PMID:23562940,https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205470. Residents of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, can submit odor reports to a smartphone app called Smell Pittsburgh. This screenshot from 15 March 2022 reflects a spike in reports resulting from a 4-day odor-trapping inversion. Crowdsourcing platforms like this can help produce a fuller picture of how environmental odors and air pollution are experienced by those exposed. Image: Courtesy Smell Pittsburgh. Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-5 130(6) June 2022 15. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2004. Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests. [Press release.] 28 December 2004.https://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2004/12/041219182339.htm [accessed 9 June 2022]. 16. Fang W, Huang Y, Ding Y, Qi G, Liu Y, Bi J. 2022. Health risks of odorous com- pounds during the whole process of municipal solid waste collection and treat- ment in China. Environ Intl 158:106951, PMID:34710733,https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envint.2021.106951. 17. Ganpat W, Ragoobar T, Gopalan K. 2019. Intensive swine production: impact on air quality and its association with community residents’respiratory ill- nesses. Iran J Health Safety Environ 6(1):1190–1197.https://ijhse.ir/index.php/ IJHSE/article/view/370 [accessed 9 June 2022]. 18. Ockerman E. 2021. Rotten eggs, paint, and garbage: what environmental racism smells like.Vice.com, News section, 9 December 2021.https://www.vice.com/ en/article/7kb8ed/environmental-racism-cause-of-bad-smelling-neighborhoods [accessed 9 June 2022]. 19. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. Criteria Air Pollutants. [Website.] Updated 16 August 2021.https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants [accessed 9 June 2022]. 20. Brancher M, Griffiths KD, Franco D, de Melo Lisboa H. 2017. A review of odour impact criteria in selected countries around the world. Chemosphere 168:1531– 1570, PMID:27939667,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.160. 21. Grand View Research. 2022.Legal Marijuana Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product Type (Flower, Oil And Tinctures), By Application (Medical, Adult Use), By Region (North America, Europe, APAC, LATAM, Africa), And Segment Forecasts, 2022–2030. Report ID: GVR-2-68038-152-8. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/legal-marijuana-market [accessed 9 June 2022]. 22. TurpinJR.2020.Reducingcannabisodorsisagrowingconcern.AirConditioning Heating Refrigeration News, online edition, 28 April 2020.https://www. achrnews.com/articles/143060-reducing-cannabis-odors-is-a-growing-concern [accessed9June2022]. 23. Strunk CD. 2020. Yes to cannabis! Just not in my backyard: an analysis of odor-based claims in the cannabis industry.Brief, 2 September 2020.https:// www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/the_ brief/2019-20/summer/yes-cannabis-just-not-my-backyard-analysis-odorbased- claims-the-cannabis-industry/[accessed 9 June 2022]. 24. Mozingo J. 2019. Must reads: the world’s largest pot farms, and how Santa Barbara opened the door.Los Angeles Times, California section, online edition, 12 June 2019.https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-santa-barbara- pot-grows-20190612-htmlstory.html [accessed 9 June 2022]. 25. Burns M. 2021. Partial ceasefire in Carpinteria’s cannabis wars. Former foes sign a pact to get rid of the stench of pot.Santa Barbara Independent, News section, online edition, 23 September 2021.https://www.independent.com/2021/09/23/ partial-ceasefire-in-carpinterias-cannabis-wars/[accessed 9 June 2022]. 26. Maher R, Bhandari S, de Ferreyro Monticelli D, Eykelbosh A, Henderson SB, Zimmerman N, et al. 2021. Understanding the urban smellscape: developing a screeningmethodforodoursourceidentificationusingcitizenscienceandbacktra- jectory modelling. In:Proceedings of the 134th Annual Meeting (2021). Multisector Engagement for Addressing Emerging Environmental Exposures. 30 August–2 September2021.Alexandria,VA:FloridaStateHorticulturalSociety,1054344. 27. de Ferreyro Monticelli D, Bhandari S, Eykelbosh A, Henderson SB, Giang A, Zimmerman N. 2022. Cannabis cultivation facilities: a review of their air quality impacts from the occupational to community scale. Environ Sci Technol 56(5):2880–2896, PMID:35138823,https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c06372. 28. Allen KD, McKernan K, Pauli C, Roe J, Torres A, Gaudino R. 2019. Genomic charac- terization of the complete terpene synthase gene familyfrom Cannabissativa.PLoS One14(9):e0222363,PMID:31513654,https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222363. 29. BoothJK,Bohlmann J.2019. Terpenes in Cannabis sativa—fromplant genometo humans. Plant Sci 284:67–72, PMID:31084880,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci. 2019.03.022. 30. Little DB, Croteau RB. 1999. Biochemistry of essential oil terpenes. In:Flavor Chemistry. Teranishi R, Wick EL, Hornstein I, eds. Boston, MA: Springer, 239–253. 31. Samburova V, McDaniel M, Campbell D, Wolf M, Stockwell WR, Khlystov A. 2019. Dominant volatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured at four Cannabis growing facilities: pilot study results. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 69(11):1267– 1276, PMID:31498732,https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1654038. 32. OswaldIWH,OjedaMA, PobanzRJ, KobyKA,BuchananAJ,DelRossoJ,etal.2021. Identification of a new family of prenylated volatile sulfur compounds in Cannabis revealed by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatograph. ACS Omega 6(47):31667–31676,PMID:34869990,https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c04196. 33. Rice S, Koziel JA. 2015. Characterizing the smell of marijuana by odor impact of volatile compounds: an application of simultaneous chemical and sensory analysis. PLoS One 10(12):e0144160, PMID:26657499,https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0144160. 34. KozielJA,GuentherA,ByersM,IwasinskaA,ParkerD,WrightD.2021.Updateon the Development of a New ASTM Standard for Environmental Odor Assessment. Plenary Lecture at the NOSE2020. In:Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Environmental Odour Monitoring and Control, Virtual Conference, 18–21April2021.Milan,Italy:ItalianAssociationofChemicalEngineering. 35. Long E. 2022. Byers Scientific, Iowa State University, and Odor Experts Identify the Volatile Chemical Compound Responsible for Cannabis Odor Complaints. [Press release.] 22 March 2021.https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 20210322005837/en/Byers-Scientific-Iowa-State-Universityand-Odor-Experts- Identify-the-Volatile-Chemical-Compound-Responsible-for-Cannabis-Odor- Complaints [accessed 9 June 2022]. 36. Rohr AC, Wilkins CK, Clausen PA, Hammer M, Nielsen GD, Wolkoff P, et al. 2002. Upper airway and pulmonary effects of oxidation products of (+)-α-pi- nene, d-limonene, and isoprene in BALB/c mice. Inhal Toxicol 14(7):663–684, PMID:12122569,https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370290084575. 37. Zhang JJ, Wei Y, Fang Z. 2019. Ozone pollution: a major health hazard worldwide. Front Immunol 10:2518, PMID:31736954,https://doi.org/10.3389/ fimmu.2019.02518. 38. World Health Organization. 2006.WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide: Global Update 2005–Summary of Risk Assessment. WHO/SDE/PHE/OEH/06.02.https://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/handle/10665/69477/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y [accessed 9 June 2022]. 39. Wang CT, Wiedinmyer C, Ashworth K, Harley PC, Ortega J, Rasool QZ, et al. 2019. Potential regional air quality impacts of cannabis cultivation facilities in Denver, Colorado. Atmos Chem Phys 19(22):13973–13987,https://doi.org/10.5194/ acp-19-13973-2019. 40. Li S, Ahmed L, Zhang R, Pan Y, Matsunami H, Burger JL, et al. 2016. Smelling sulfur: copper and silver regulate the response of human odorant receptor OR2T11 to low-molecular-weight thiols. J Am Chem Soc 138(40):13281–13288, PMID:27659093,https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b06983. 41. Bokowa A, Diaz C, Koziel JA, McGinley M, Barclay J, Schauberger G, et al. 2021. Summary and overview of odour regulations worldwide. Atmosphere 12(2):206,https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020206. 42. Don Wright & Associates, LLC. 2022. Don’s biography. [Website.]https:// plumechasers.com/index.html#/Biography [accessed 9 June 2022]. 43. Koziel JA, Guenther A, Vizuete W, Wright DW, Iwasinska A. 2022.“Skunky” cannabis: environmental odor troubleshooting and the “need-for-speed.”ACS Omega 7(23):19043–19047,https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c00517. 44. Wright DW, Eaton DK, Nielsen LT, Kuhrt FW, Koziel JA, Spinhirne JP, et al. 2005. Multidimensional gas chromatography–olfactometry for the identifica- tion and prioritization of malodors from confined animal feeding operations. J Agric Food Chem 53(22):8663–8672, PMID:16248569,https://doi.org/10.1021/ jf050763b. 45. Schiffman SS, Bennett JL, Raymer JH. 2001. Quantification of odors and odor- ants from swine operations in North Carolina. Agric For Meteorol 108(3):213– 240,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(01)00239-8. 46. Eniola B, Perschbacher-Buser Z, Caraway E, Ghosh N, Olsen M, Parker D. 2006. Odor control in waste management lagoons via reduction of p-cresol using horseradish peroxidase. In:Proceedings of the 2006 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting,9–12 July 2006. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 064044. 47. Smell Vancouver. 2022. Submit a smell report. [Website.]https://smell- vancouver.ca/[accessed 9 June 2022]. 48. Davidson CI. 1979. Air pollution in Pittsburgh: a historical perspective. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 29(10):1035–1041,https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1979.10470892. 49. American Lung Association. 2022. State of the air: Pennsylvania: Allegheny. [Website.]https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/pennsylvania/ allegheny [accessed 9 June 2022]. 50. Smell Pittsburgh. 2022. Smell, submit, share! [Website.]https://smellpgh.org/ [accessed 9 June 2022]. 51. Smell Pittsburgh. 2022. Download smell report data for Allegheny County. [Website.]https://smellpgh.org/data [accessed 9 June 2022]. 52. U.S. EPA. 2022. Odor Explore: a citizen science project using a mobile app and new measurement approaches. [Website.] Updated 23 January 2022.https:// www.epa.gov/air-research/odor-explore-citizen-science-project-using-mobile- app-and-new-measurement-approaches [accessed 9 June 2022]. 53. Wing S, Wolf S. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health, and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents. Environ Health Perspect 108(3):233– 238, PMID:10706529,https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108233. 54. Mirabelli MC, Wing S, Marshall SW, Wilcosky TC. 2006. Race, poverty, and potential exposure of middle-school students to air emissions from confined swine feeding operations. Environ Health Perspect 114(4):591–596, PMID: 16581551,https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8586. Environmental Health Perspectives 062001-6 130(6) June 2022 GVWX23 GVWX15 GVWX25 GVWX35 GVWX3 GVWX7 GVWX3 GVWX4 ?@A@97 ?@A@95 ST86 ST57 ST50 ST91 ST85 ST52 P A R A D E A V EN 230TH S T N OZAR K A V E N OLI N D A T R L N LOF T O N A V E N O D E LL AVE N ME A DO W RIDGE TRLN K I R K C T N L A N G L Y AVE N 1 85TH ST N 2 3 9 T HST N M A Y B E R R Y T R L N 202ND S T N 237THST N 182NDSTN SCANDIA TRL N MAXWILL AVE N 2 0 5 T H STN O A K H IL L R D N NEWGATEAVEN P I L A R R D N PENFIELD AVE N 197 T H ST N N O V A K A V E N OLDFIELD AVE N MANNI N G T R L N S T C R O I X T R L N L A N G LY CT N 240TH ST N QUENTIN AVE N PARISAVEN KI R K AV EN KIRK AVE N 213THSTN 215TH ST N OXBOROCIR N 199TH ST N 209TH ST N 185TH ST N 228TH ST N OA K H I L L W A Y N MORGAN AVE N OL D M A R I N E T R L N LAYTONAVEN NORELL AV E N PA R K VIE W AVEN 2 0 5 T H S T N OLINDA LNN OZARK CT N 215TH ST N OLGILVIE AVEN 2 1 4 TH ST N 220THST N OR E N R D N OXBOROAVE N NOVAK AVE N L A M A R AVE N 236THST N MEADOW BROOK AVE N M E L A N I E T RL N Q U I N T AV E N 220TH ST N 188THST MILLARD A V E N ORWELLCIR N 238TH ST N O RWELL AVE N KIRBY A V E N PEABO DYTRL N 232ND ST N 235TH ST N P ERKINS AVE N 217TH ST N 196THSTN 216TH ST N P A R R IS H R D N 195TH ST N 181ST ST N L A K A M A G A T R L N P O M R OY AVE N 230TH ST N QUARRY AVE N LOFT O N C T N 202ND S T N O L A ND AVE N OAKGREEN AVE N OSTR U M A V EN P E N R O S EAVE N QUI NNELLAVE N 188T H S T N O X B ORO L N N 192ND ST N NOLAN AVE N PARKVIEW L N N QUALITYTRL N 218TH ST N PO M R OYAVE N Scandia Elementary S t. C r oix River S t .C r o i x R i v e r Ma p D o c u m e n t : \\ a r c s e r v e r 1 \ b m i _ g i s \ M I N N E S O T A \ S C N D \ 0 T 6 W 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 \ P r o \ S c a n d i a _ O n - C a l l _ P l a n n i n g _ S e r v i c e s . a p r x | U s e r n a m e : E l i z a b e t h . G o u g h n o u r | D a t e S a v e d : 1 0 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 4 1 1 : 3 8 A M Legend Elementary School School Buffer - 1,000' Lakes River & Streams Parcels School - Public Zoned Property A-P - Agricultural Preserves AG-C - Agricultural Core RR-G - Rural Residential General City Limits 0 0.75 mi. Source: City of Scandia, WHCO, CGCO, MnDOT, MDNR !I Cannabis Zoning Regulation City of Scandia, MN School Setback October 2024 GVWX3 ?@A@97 ST52 OZARK AVE N O L I N D A T R L N O A K H I L L R D N OREN AVE N S C A N D I A T R L N 213TH ST N 2 0 9 T H S T N OZARK CT N 214 T H ST NOLANDAVEN